Trial Day 13 - afternoon & evening discussion

This second daily Megathread is for trial updates and discussion, questions and opinions.

Please be kind to other users and comment respectfully.

Also, TGIF everyone!

So what transpired in day 15 of trail (Thur/the day the Prosecution rested) is that RA's "confession" to dr Wala included reference to "van", not a "white van". Weber owns white van but it seems (from Defense's last questions of their cross on Weber on Thur) that Defense will demonstrate that he told LE in 2017 that he was not in the area at the time of abduction. Now he seems to have changed his testimony saying he was there around 2.30. While we wait for that, reference to just "van" seems already so generic and could have been just made up by RA in his psychosis, not a smoking-gun detail "only killer would know".

Related to that, on what happened at the bottom of the hill. I think most of us following the case have struggled to reconsile all the strange details/evidence of the crime scene. I would like to hear your thoughts on the following scenario that could explain a great deal of those:

1. More than one perpetrator (already at bridge or possibly one on bridge and one or more at the bottom of the hill).
2. Kidnapping possibly involving a gun threat (to force compliance) or kidnapping by someone Girls would know/not feel threatened by (Libby's voice on recording saying "there is no path" was before "down the hill" and - apparently- did not sound scared/disturbed).
3. L&A forced/asked to go down the hill.
4. Kindapper(s) order the girls to undress there. This would explain Abby's clothes in water at that side of the creek.
5. Girls are then taken (in a car) to secondary location.
6. If phone was in Libbys pants, it would stay with the clothes, this would explain no phone movement after 2.32 pm.
7. Girls are brought later at night, after the search was called off, back to the bottom of the hill/where the clothes are. I know, risky as some people are still in the area searching.
8. Abby puts on Libby's clothes (with the phone in pocket), most likely by order, and the girls and killer(s) cross the creek.
9. Phone died at 10.32pm so no movement across creek is recorded.
10. They are murdered on the other side of the creek. This would explain the wet line on the clothes Abby was wearing (which would be hard to explain if Abby did not cross the creek, in Libby's clothes, on her own).
11. This would also possibly explain why no screams were heard (late at night/early in the morning).
12. It would also explain why phone was under Abby. It could have fell out of the pocket and it was not noticed by killer(s) as it was dark.
13. Under this scenario the killer(s) would have much more time to do what they did, which is more difficult to fit into the timeline presented by Prosecutor.

The above scenario does not cover/explain "muddy and/or bloddy" testimony, lack of defense wounds, lack of blood on Abby's hands, the upward direction of blood flow marks on girls's necks, why phone would register sms dump at 4.22am (not sure i get this time exactly right) and (argued by Defense) small amount of Abby's blood at the scene, definitely compared to the amount of Libby's blood at ground zero.

Please share your thoughts, the comments on this sub are often very thought provoking and insightful.

Hello everyone. I’ve been following the trial discussion, and I thought I chip in to explain something I’ve seen a couple people wonder about in the trial discussion threads. I will be honest that while I am a linguist, I am NOT a forensic speech scientist, which is the type of linguist best suited to analyze the “guys…down the hill” clip. However, I have taken some classes that have covered the basics of forensic speech science (FSS) and types of FSS analysis, and I work in a field closely connected to FSS. I figured it was worth taking the time to try and explain a few things that should be considered regarding the Bridge Guy (BG) recording and its relevance in the courtroom.

As a brief explanation, FSS typically involves the analysis of recorded spoken language often using computer software that allows the analyst to examine the recording. There’s a few types of analysis that a FSS analyst can do:

1. a comparison using a recording of an unknown speaker to a recording of a known speaker to determine the likelihood they are the same speaker
2. an analysis of a recording of an unknown speaker to identify characteristics that can help develop a linguistic profile of the speaker to aid an investigation
3. disputed utterance analysis and audio enhancement, which essentially involves digitally cleaning sections of recordings where there is difficulty understanding what is being said

With that in mind, if someone were to testify about the recording in court, a forensic speech scientist would have the qualifications and expertise to analyze the recording. There’s a few different ways a forensic speech scientist could analyze this recording could be analyzed if they were to compare RA’s voice to BG’s voice to determine the likelihood they are the same person:

1. Auditory approach: the analyst listens to the unknown speaker recording and compares it to known speaker recordings to make a judgment on the likelihood they are the same speaker by comparing vocabulary, pronunciation, intonation, etc.; this tends to be the least popular type of analysis used and can be quite subjective
2. Spectrographic approach: the analyst visually compares words or phrases using a spectrogram, a visual representation of sound
3. Acoustic-phonetic approach: using a combination of the auditory and visual approaches used in the previous 2 methods, an analyst makes quantitative measurements of the acoustic properties in a recording; this tends to be the most popular type of analysis used
4. Automatic approach: an automated system analyzes a recording to compare an unknown speaker to a known speaker; this approach is still being refined, as it was developed from non-forensic applications and requires human supervision to select the data that will be used and to draw conclusions from the output of the system

I’ve linked a paper covering these different methods below, but one interesting thing to note that is covered in the paper- the auditory and spectrographic approaches have not been admitted in a US court since 2003. Essentially, the Supreme Court in Daubert 1993 in combination with the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 702 found that the performance level of these approaches was not sufficient to be used in court. In a 2015 case, questions were also raised regarding the admissibility of the automatic approach but the case reached a plea deal before the judge could rule on the matter.

Now, there are two key issues with the “guys… down the hill” recording which means it is not a good piece of data for any type of forensic analysis and difficult to use to draw any meaningful conclusions:

1. the recording is too short for any meaningful analysis to be done
2. the audio quality is quite poor, even after being enhanced

Research has shown that errors rates increase when using recordings that are short. The longer the recording being used for comparison, the more the likely the analysis will be accurate. This is in part because a longer recording will often contain more phonemic variation (a wider variety of sounds that appear). If we look at the “guys…down the hill” recording, the duration of the recording is very short, and there is little phonemic variation. If we want to be extra nit-picky, we also can’t draw too many conclusions about intonation because from my understanding, there is a bit of audio missing between “guys” and “down the hill”.

In terms of the audio quality, it is generally quite poor and had to be enhanced to get the chunk of audio that has been released. It isn’t uncommon for recordings used in the forensic setting to vary in quality as they can be captured from a variety of different settings and contexts. However, background noise can cause a lot of problems when analyzing this type of recording and can interfere with the analysis.

Additionally, one thing I want to touch on is the trial discussion surrounding this recording yesterday. An Indiana State Police master trooper testified that after listening to RA’s voice in several recordings believes RA’s voice is the voice heard in the BG recording. This individual is NOT qualified to make that conclusion based on that specific evidence. Overall, while I think releasing the audio to the public was a worthwhile decision to see if a suspect could be identified, it is not sufficient data that should be used to definitively conclude someone is or is not Bridge Guy, and especially not by someone who does not have the qualifications or training to do so. Research has shown that if an individual is familiar with a speaker, they are more likely to be able to recognize their voice, even on a short recording. This means that the BG recording has a lot of potential for the initial stages of the investigation; family members or friends could hear the recording and recognize the voice, which could lead to tips and help law enforcement develop a pool of suspects to look into further. However, the BG recording is not lengthy enough and the audio quality is not high enough to make it ideal for further analysis by a forensic speech scientist, who would be the ideal person to testify in court regarding the likelihood RA and BG’s voices match.

Even though this is not my speciality, I do hope that this explanation has perhaps shed some light on the value of the BG recording and the importance that should be placed on the officer’s testimony yesterday that RA’s voice matches BG. I want to be extremely clear that we are so incredibly fortunate to even have this recording in the first place thanks to Libby. This is just meant to help people understand how this recording can be used as a part of the investigation and trial. I’m going to link a few sources below for anyone interested in reading more or verifying the contents of the post:

https://www.york.ac.uk/study/postgraduate-taught/courses/msc-forensic-speech-science/

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/languageandlinguistics/documents/currentstudents/Eriksson_tutorial_paper.pdf

https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/38272/6/Morrison_Enzinger_2019_Introduction_to_forensic_voice_comparison_preprint_2018_07_20a.pdf

Trial Day 13

This daily Megathread is for trial updates and discussion, questions and opinions.

Please be kind to other users and comment respectfully. Thank you!

Around August of 2022 RA searched for:

• Delphi Murder Updates
• Texas Elementary School Shooting
• Disturbing and terrifying things on Netflix
• More searches for Delphi Murder Updates and just Delphi in general

In October of 2022 (last entry)

• Best kidnapping and hostage movies ever made
• Man Held Against His Will ( a movie)
• Man held hostage by teen
• Killing of a sacred deer

May of 2020

• Delphi Murders
• News stories about Delphi
• Rifle ranges and applied ballistics

April of 2022

• Should I die now
• Most disturbing movie ever
• What is the darkest **** on Netflix
• Most ****** up things on Netflix

Source: Carroll County Comet on FB

Trial Day 12 - afternoon/evening

Since there is so much discussion, we're opening a second daily Megathread for trial updates and discussion, questions and opinions.

Please be kind to other users and comment respectfully. Thank you!

Happy Halloween!

Trial Day 12 - morning and midday

This thread is for trial updates and discussion, questions and opinions.

Please comment respectfully to other users while discussing. Thank you!

Just stumbled across the Delphi Docs copy of the witness list - was stunned that both Kegan Kline, Mike Patty & Doug Carter are on the defense’s witness list. This should prove interesting. Was a bit shocked, actually.

As a psychologist, Dr. Wala has to abide by a Code of Professional Conduct developed by the Indiana State Psychologist Board. The Code is spelled out for her in the Indiana Administrative Code, Rule 868, IAC 1.1-11 Code of Professional Conduct. I'm going to specifically talk about:

Section 868 IAC 1.1-11-4.1 - Relationships within professional practice: (a) A psychologist shall not enter into a dual relationship with a patient or client if such relationship could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation of the patient or client.

When she admitted to being a true crime sleuth/ true crime aficionado/ armchair detective, she also admitted that she had a conflict of interest when she accepted taking on RA as a client/patient. Prior to RA becoming her patient, Dr. Wala told the court she’d followed the case through true crime podcasts and social media and even engaged with posts about it. As the investigation developed, she said she became more involved and used the IDOC database to search for information the public didn’t have access to. (a violation of her contract which ultimately led to her being fired btw)

She followed podcasts and online chat rooms, she COMMENTED & contributed information and told people where to go for more information. She became even more interested in the Delphi case after RA's arrest. Once RA arrived at her prison, she was ethically obligated to make a formal report to her employer that she had a conflict of interest because she could not remain impartial in her treatment of RA due to her knowledge of the case/interest in the case/bias and STEP AWAY from the case.

Instead, she stayed on the case as his primary mental health provider. And apparently she testified that she sometimes shared information with Allen about what she saw online....WHAT?!?!?! She says it was all positive 'you have supporters' but she shouldn't have been googling his case and she shouldn't have been relaying that information to him anyway!

Maybe stayed on the case because she wanted to help solve the case?

Maybe she wanted to get insider information on the case to satisfy her morbid curiosity?

She had been obsessed with the case from the start, would YOU give up the opportunity to finally be involved in the case?

Except, she was in a position of influence/power to coerce confessions. out of RA (whether those confessions are true or not doesn't matter), her position was of such influence/power that she could EXPLOIT her patient.

Will she face any consequences under Indiana Code Title 25. Professions and Occupations Article 1. General Provisions Chapter 9. Health Professions Standards of Practice 25-1-9-9. Disciplinary Sanctions? She lost her position at this prison but she's still a contractor.

This is a full list of witnesses that testified for the prosecution. The prosecution rested their case at the end of the day on Thursday, October 31st.

Oct. 18, Day 1 testimony

• Becky Patty: Grandmother to Libby German
• Kelsi Siebert: Older sister to Libby German
• Derrick German: Father of Libby German
• Anna Williams: Mother of Abby Williams
• Mitch Catron: Deputy of Carroll County Sheriff's Office [SEARCH]

Oct. 19, Day 2 testimony

• Patrick Brown: Delphi resident and longtime friend of Mike Patty, Libby's grandfather, who participated in the search for the teens on Feb. 14, 2017 [FOUND GIRLS]
• Jake Johns: Delphi resident who participated in the search for the teens on Feb. 14, 2017 [FOUND GIRLS]
• Steve Mullin: Former chief, Delphi Police Department [SEARCH COORDINATION]

Oct. 21, Day 3 testimony

• Jason Page: Crime scene investigator for Indiana State Police [CRIME SCENE PHOTOS]
• Darron Giancola: Deputy of Carroll County Sheriff's Office [CRIME SCENE REVIEW]
• Duane Datzman: Former crime scene investigator for Indiana State Police [CRIME SCENE / FOUND BULLET]
• Brian Olehy: Crime scene investigator for Indiana State Police [DOCUMENTING SCENE / PRESERVING EVIDENCE / STICKS]

Oct. 22, Day 4 testimony

• Railly Voorhies: She traveled to the Monon High Bridge trail with Breann Wilber on Feb. 13, 2017
• Breann Wilber: A friend of Kelsi Siebert, Libby's older sister, Wilber traveled to the Monon High Bridge trail Feb. 13, 2017
• Betsy Blair: She saw Abby and Libby chatting quietly on the Monon High Bridge trail Feb. 13, 2017
• Jeremey Chapman: System administrator for Indiana State Police [VIDEO ENHANCEMENT]
• Brian Olehy: Crime scene investigator for Indiana State Police [DOCUMENTING SCENE / PRESERVING EVIDENCE / STICKS]
• Steve Mullin: Former chief, Delphi Police Department [SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE OF CARS]

Oct. 23, Day 5 testimony

• Sarah Carbaugh: She testified that she saw "Bridge Guy" while driving east along a county road near the Monon High Bridge trail
• Christopher Cecil: Digital forensics expert with Indiana State Police [DIGITAL FORENSICS LIBBY’S PHONE]
• Roland Kohr: Semi-retired forensic pathologist [AUTOPSY]

Oct. 24, Day 6 testimony

• Steve Mullin: Former police chief, Delphi Police Department [CAR ON VIDEO, FIRST RA INTERVIEW 2022]
• David Vido: Investigator with Indiana State Police [SEARCH OF HOME]
• Jerry Holeman: Investigator with Indiana State Police [INTERVIEW / INTERROGATION OF RA]
• Tony Liggett: Sheriff of the Carroll County Sheriff's Office [EXPLAINING HOW THEY F’D UP]
• Dan Dulin: Indiana Department of Natural Resources captain who assisted with the early investigation into the Delphi killings [2017 RA INTERVIEW]
• Kathy Shank: Retired government employee and volunteer at the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office [MISFILED 2017 RA INTERVIEW]

Oct. 25, Day 7 testimony

• Melissa Oberg: Firearms expert with Indiana State Police [ BULLET / GUN COMPARISON]

Oct. 26, Day 8 testimony

• Jerry Holeman: Investigator with Indiana State Police [INTERROGATION]

Oct. 28, Day 9 testimony

• Patrick Cicero: Crime scene investigator trained on bloodstain pattern analysis [BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS]
• Stacy Bozinovski: Forensic scientist who specializes in paternity or kinship analysis with Indiana State Police [DNA ANALYSIS]

Oct. 29, Day 10 testimony

• Jason Bedwell: Officer at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility [CONFESSIONS]
• Brandon Fisher: Former Westville Correctional Facility officer [CONFESSIONS]
• John Galipeau: Former Westville Correctional Facility warden [CONFESSIONS]
• Michael Roberts: Westville Correctional Facility officer [CONFESSIONS]
• Raymond Smith: Westville Correctional Facility officer [CONFESSIONS]

Oct. 30, Day 11 testimony

• Dr. Monica Wala: former lead psychologist for the Indiana Department of Correction [CONFESSIONS]
• Brad Weber: Carroll County resident who lives off County Road 625 West, just outside of Delphi [VAN]
• Steve Mullin: Former Police Chief, Delphi Police Department [BLACK FORD FOCUS]

Oct 31, Day 12 of testimony

• Brian Harshman: State Police Master Trooper [CONFESSION PHONE CALL AUDIO / VAN]

I found this great resource published by IndyStar that I have been using as a reference to keep straight who testified to what (I’ve added today’s witnesses as they are not yet listed).

Next to each name they have a snippet of what they testified about. I didn’t paste that all in here as it gets really long, but here it is in full: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2024/10/26/richard-allen-trial-delphi-murders-witnesses-libby-german-abby-williams/75714462007/

In total (to-date) there have been 34 witnesses called (some have appeared more than once), out of what was reported to be about 50 potential witnesses for the prosecution.

Edit: I added the context of the testimony in brackets/italics next to each name

Edit: also adding this summary of witnesses by Fox59 https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/delphi-murders-trial-day-by-day-summary-of-the-proceedings/

RA admitted in the confession played today in court that his plan was to r*pe the girls. He panicked when he saw a van drive past and killed the girls.

Brad Weber is the son of the owner of the private property across the creek and he came forward at an early stage of the investigation and said he was driving his white van home and would’ve arrived home from approximately 3:30 - 4pm.

This has to be the white van which RA is referencing, which interrupted him.

This was not in discovery, nor was it reported heavily in the media. The only reason RA knows a white van drove past the woods is because he’s the killer.

With the trial underway, there's a few reminders to address.

(1) All Viewpoints are Welcome Anyone interested in having a civil discussion, regardless of whether you feel the defendant, Richard Allen, is guilty or not guilty, is welcome. Disagreement can help everyone learn more, as long as we debate with diplomacy and kindness.

(2) Be Respectful when Commenting Since we’re adults, let's discuss this case without name calling, insulting, trolling, and other aggressive or immature behavior. Doing so will be the fastest way to get banned from discussion, which we prefer to not do. Speak from facts, not from emotions.

Any kind of insult, trolling, put downs, call outs, etc. will be removed and may result in a ban even the first time.

(3) For a post to be considered for approval it needs to be more than just your opinion. It should include facts and/or links to support your topic, and be enough to encourage its own discussion.

Most personal theories, opinions, posts with just a link, and short questions should be commented in the pinned daily MEGA Thread.

(4) Report Rule Breaking It's busy in this sub. The mods are trying our best to review every comment, but we are not on the sub 24/7. When you see content that is against the rules, reporting it is the fastest way to let mods know so we can take appropriate action.

Thank you for being a part of this community.

Let me get this out of the way: I'm not sure if RA is guilty. Before the trial started, I was 75% sure. Every time the prosecution opens his mouth, that confidence drops.

I don't know much about blood splatter, Odinism, etc, but I do know firearms, and I handload as well, so I know ammunition.

My issues:

1. The firearms examiner couldn't get the SIG P226 to leave tooling marks on a new, hand-cycled round. She had to fire the rounds to get toolmarks. This suggests to me that the round the investigators found was a reload.

2. I've attached a picture of a SIG P226 .40S&W ejector. The skinny end is what makes high-speed contact with the brass. It's similar to the extended ejectors I use in my 1911s. From experience, I know that, if RA fired his SIG P226 anywhere near a normal amount, the tool marks would be peened away in the four years he still had the pistol. Perhaps not completely gone, but appreciably altered.

My two biggest concerns are that RA is innocent and is found guilty, in which case the cops will no longer be looking for the real killer; and, RA is let off due to a weak case presented by the prosecution, but it's found later he really did do it but cannot be tried again.

There is, of course, more evidence to be presented. However, if it's the same quality as that presented thus far, the best I could hope for is a hung jury to give the prosecution time to gather more evidence.

https://www.wrtv.com/news/delphi/delphi-murders-trial-day-10-jury-sees-richard-allens-interview-with-police

Does RA ever disclose information only the killer would know/held back from the public by the police? These confessions are just babble. He’s either going insane in solitary and/or hoping by confessing they move him to a regular cell.

I’m still open to him being the perpetrator but if I’m on the jury I’m looking at these confessions with a massive grain of salt.

Trial Day 11

This thread is for trial updates and discussion, questions and opinions.

Please keep comments respectful while discussing. Thank you!

I’m a lawyer, I've been a lawyer for 12 years and I will NEVER talk to any police officer under any circumstances. Listening to today’s interviews of RA are proof that you should NOT talk to the police, regardless of innocence or guilt. So...shut up. No really..shut up...it's for your own good. You can be a saint and it doesn't matter...straight to jail.

The fact is, cops are trained to prey on the human condition, or at least one element of it. We grow up being taught to help people when we can, and we learn to trust police officers from kindergarten. Without getting into a stereotype that all cops are bad or untrustworthy (for the record, they are not), it’s just not wise to talk to cops, unless your life is in danger. They (cops) are, more often than not, not there to help us. What’s worse, their training is intensely focused on gathering information from people not otherwise inclined to give it.

THIS IS A SCRIPT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW WHENEVER YOU INTERACT WITH COPS....so.....a cop stops you in the middle of the street...or comes to your door...or starts talking to you...

YOU: Officer, am I being detained or am I free to go? (Saying you want to leave establishes that the encounter is not voluntarily which helps you later if you end up in court.)

IF they say..

COP: Yes…..

You say:

YOU: Officer, I’d like to remain silent and I’d like to speak with a lawyer. (Regardless of what you are told by an investigating officer, you have nothing to gain by talking to the police … and everything to lose.SHUT UP AND ASK FOR A LAWYER...LAWYERRRRRRRRRRRRRR UP!!!!!! IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER, USE IT HOMIE. )

IF they say..

COP: No…

You…walk away. SIMPLE AS THAT.

YOU: Thank you. Have a nice day, Officer.

IF they avoid answering and say  

COP: “Hey, I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this, ask you a few questions. This is just casual conversation.” OR “Look, you’re not a suspect, for now. If you leave, I’ll be forced to take your name and contact information, and I can’t promise you won’t be brought in for questioning.”

You say…

 YOU: “Officer, am I being detained or am I free to go?”(Until you get a straightforward answer your status is unclear. Once an officer says you are free to go, however, you may then leave. Otherwise, you are being detained, and you may have the right to an attorney during any further questioning.)

In conclusion, don’t feel embarrassed or scared to assert your rights. If you do, know that it is a common emotional response to these stressful situations. Remember, always ask these questions:

Why talking to the police can hurt you, even when you’re innocent: (JUST SHUT UP AND ASK FOR A LAWYER...SERIOUSLY....JUST SHUT UP)

1.        Talking cannot help, ever. You will never have a lawyer say “thank GOD my client talked to the police!”  You cannot talk your way out of getting arrested. In fact, what you tell the police, even if it’s exculpatory cannot be used to help you at trial because it’s what we call hearsay under the rules of evidence.

2.        Even if your client is innocent and denies his guilt and mostly tells the truth, he can easily get carried away and tell some little lie or make some little mistake that will hang him. “I didn’t do it, I didn’t shoot anyone, I wasn’t at frat party, I wasn’t even around that weekend, I went home that weekend” except you were around, you didn’t go home to visit your Mom that weekend, you stayed at school that weekend to study for finals, but, you didn’t shoot anyone, you’re totally innocent, but you got carried away with your statements and they can PROVE you were on campus…so now they think you’re a big fat liar.

3.        Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and does not tell the police anything incriminating (which by the way is almost impossible to pull this off), In 2-3 hours, a cop WILL manage to extract something from you that could be used to convict you. Let’s say you tell a cop “I don't know who killed Jones, but it wasn't me. *I have never touched or  fired a gun in my life.**” You’re thinking, how does that statement incriminate my client? All the cop has to do is tell the jury/prosecutor’s office “*I never said anything about a shooting, I said we were investigating a murder he was the one who brought up a gun.” DUN DUN DUN! Except…you heard them mention something about a shooter while they were in the hallway…so you naturally made the connection…

*4.        Even if your client is innocent, only tells the truth, does not tell the the police anything incriminating, BUT the police is in possession of incorrect evidence or a false witness, it will be used to convict you. “Officer, I didn’t kill Jenny, I wasn’t even in the State, I took a roadtrip to NY to visit my Mom.” And it’s completely true, except you used cash to pay for stuff all weekend so you don’t have anything on your credit card to show that you were out of state and no one is going to believe your Mom’s testimony saying you were visiting her because ALL MOMS will lie for their kids. AND they have someone who is willing to say they saw you at the local TJ Maxx shopping for shoes on Saturday, they saw you (*it wasn’t you, it was literally some doppelganger, but they swear it was you! And they’re willing to testify in court it was you).

Per the recollection of people in the court room that I've listened to, the markings on the unspent round could not be replicated by just manually cycling the gun and ejecting the round without firing. They said they got a broad match when comparing to a fired casing to the unspent round. In my opinion, that detail alone makes this scientifically dubious, and should not be used to claim a match.

There is something that would make for a better point from the state imo, and that would be if RA reloaded his ammunition. If you're not aware, you can reload spent casings. You can take the empty brass casings, replace the primers, load with powder, and attach a new bullet. It requires a bit of tooling and takes a bit of effort, but it's more economical if you shoot a lot.

If the round found at the scene was reloaded, it could have extraction marks made by firing previously. I don't personally reload so I'm not sure if any part of the reloading process would affect previous markings, but this could be something that lends at least some credibility to the comparison. I'm not sure if this was looked into or brought up. Does anyone know?

I listened to Lawyer Lee last night. She gave a rundown of her day in court and drew some diagrams of the murder scene. Just a couple of items I found new/interesting, and I wondered what you guys think? None of the following is my opinion. Just what I heard. So anything intresting here?

1. No usable DNA. 2. Abby was dressed after death. 3. The girls were moved to their final resting place. Thick leaves might have acted as a cushion/slide to aid in dragging Libby over to where Abby was. The arm up over her head was probably just from being dragged by it. 4. The bodies were not staged. They were just being moved to an area where there was some camouflage. And the branches across the bodies were thick, almost tree trunks, from the surrounding areas and prob placed over the girls in a hurried effort to make a quick getaway. 5. The Judge has an email account, just received, belonging to the Allens, which contains multiple sexually oriented emails. Allens wife will testify as to who in the family had access to this email account. Apparently the emails, if allowed in court, will be to demonstrate that RA is not incapable, if not capable, of commiting the crimes against the girls.

I have listened to Andrea Burkhart livestream reporting on blood-splatter expert testimony in court. The level of details she is reporting on is absolutely mindblowing.

One thing covered by the witness' testimony was the (diverted) blood flow marks on the victims (blood running from the cuts up on victims necks/face). While many blood marks flows on the bodies were explained in various ways how they could have come about, it seems there is not an obvious explanation on hiw those diverted blood floow marks got created (head would need to be lower than neck, and Abby was apparently not moved).

This was not covered by the witness' testimony but one way would be if a victim was carried from one place to another (cradle grip/over an arm), with a head hanging down. Another explanation could be... if the victims were in fact (killed while) hanging down.

On the hanging possibility - there was no signs of any restraint marks on the victims legs but this theory would possibly explain the blood flows and perhaps also no signs of defense (it is hard to fight/defend yourself if you hang upside down).

Maybe Abby lost her conciousness hanging down and that would also explain no blood on her hands.

This could possibly also explain the pooling of blood in places which were not directly under the wounds when the girls were found.

I wonder if anybody examining a crime scene ever looked up to see if there were any branches the victimes could have been hanged from / if they had any (rope?) marks on them.

On the hanging possibility part... Andrea remarked that the position of Abby's body reminded her of the tarrot Hangman (position of legs, hands). Someone then in the chat remarked that Libby's body position looked like tarrot Magician.

All of that extremely wild questions/theories but... Has this ever been discussed here?

Lastly, this may get me donwnvoted to hell and back (assuming the mods approve this post in the first place) but apparently Hangman has links to Odinism (is the Odin).

Would this case have been solved earlier if police had not been so secretive?

I have been following this case since it happened, as I have a daughter the same age as L & A. I could see the police were working SO HARD, everyone wanted to find the perpetrator. The cryptic pressers and the direction change, 2 disparate sketches, KK, CSAM & catfishing possibilities- this has been a meandering trip. There was a lot of theatrics and rigmarole that was misdirected…. They spent so much energy running down fruitless paths.

Turns out, if RA is the guy, the police were not clueless, they just bungled [lost or misfiled] THE clue that they had (that being RA giving his name & number to an official a day or 2 after the murders).

So I guess, in answering my own question, the secrecy had little to do with how long it took to make an arrest. It was all due to the misfiling/losing the name.

And as an adult with ADHD, I can’t really throw stones at the investigators for misplacing something. I’d LIKE to think I would have got his name right, and filed it correctly, but in those first few days I’m sure everyone was frazzled and exhausted.

But that secrecy was frustrating. And mystifying. It felt very “cloak & dagger”. I’m not sure what I’m getting at with this post. Maybe I’m just processing. Thanks for any thoughts y’all want to share.

Trial Day 10

This thread is for trial updates and discussion, questions and opinions.

As a reminder, we welcome all viewpoints on the trial and the defendant. We know how passionate views can be, but keep comments kind and discuss respectfully. Thank you!

After listening to multiple YT journalists and lawyers recapping each day of the trial I am curious to hear everyone's thoughts... is the Odinist theory really that crazy? I'm not one for conspiracies and have a really tough time believing this could be a big cover up, but everyday it sounds like there are new heights of screwed up decisions attempting to affect the outcome of this case and prohibit any perception of the investigation. The audacity of the judge, LE, and prosecutor, mixed with the various recaps/testimony of the trial, and handling of the case, seem so much more than LE just "dropping the ball" on the investigation and fumbling a few pieces of evidence.

I am thankful for all the people covering this case and keeping it in the light! Thank you all for keeping this case alive by speaking about it and not forgetting about it. I hope Abby and Libby get the justice they deserve, whether it be during this trial or after. I hope truth prevails.

Does anyone remember when Robert Ives , the former prosecutor of Carroll County , discussed the presence of various "signatures"at the crime scene and even "non -secular signatures"?( he specifically said 3-4) He even suggested the crime scene should be compared to other similar crime scenes as a result. At that time it appeared he was hinting at a possible serial type perpetrator. It was clear he was saying this crime was not a first crime for the murderer. Do we think this is the murderers first crime? What signatures do you see?

I had this post taken down in the DelphiTrial subreddit. I think they hate any post that might be critical of the prosecution or the evidence. I'm an attorney, I beleive in the concept of due process in a court of law so let's talk about the "magic bullet." First: let's get the terminology correct. The state 'found' an unspent cartridge at the scene.

Cartridge: The entire assembled component including the bullet, casing, power, primer charge. So Unspent Cartridge means it's an Unfired Cartridge.

THE PROBLEM: Since an unspent cartridge was found at the scene, you would THINK the lab would be comparing that unspent cartridge to other UNSPENT cartridges from Richard Allen's gun...BUT NO. The laboratory is comparing the unspent cartridge against fired rounds, and those will never be the the same even if you use the same gun, because the unspent cartridge doesn’t go through the entire firearm and the firearm is what gives it the 'signature markings.' In fact, when the ballistics expert tried to compare unspent cartridges against other unspent cartridges from RAs gun, they WOULDN'T MATCH. She HAD to compare them to fired rounds to get them to match.

Let’s go through the parts of the firearm that leave markings: 1. The lips of a magazine can leave markings along both sides of a cartridge as the slide or bolt moves the cartridge from the top of the magazine and into the chamber; 2. The extractor can leave markings within the extractor groove of a cartridge both as it is loaded into the chamber, and as it pulls the cartridge out of the chamber; 3. The ejector can leave markings on the head of the cartridge as it impacts the cartridge pushing it against the tension of the extractor spring to remove it from the firearm; 4. Sometimes when ejecting a firearm cartridges will impact the same area on the ejection port which can leave another set of markings on the side of the cartridge.

If a cartridge has been chambered and ejected (but not fired) you would look at the markings from the extractor and ejector but there wouldn't be markings from the lips of the magazine.

So that 1. proves the point that an unspent cartridge wouldn't have the same markings as a fired round because it's going to have LESS markings than a fired round. and 2. If there are two guns, same model and same chamber size, if the rim is the only part of the casing to touch the chamber, since the chamber holds no rifling, those two guns will leave the same marks.

Interesting if the tool mark analysis was done on a fired round would it be different than an unfired? When fired the case expands in the chamber not much but slightly. Would this change the perspective of the analysis? Has this been brought up? This is why you have to resize the brass during the reloading process.

Has anyone seen or created a map of the general bridge area with kind of loose ideas of where specifically parties were searching the night the girls disappeared? From all the various accounts I’ve heard, I really can’t get an idea of how close or not close to where the bodies were that people were searching? I’ve seen many photos of the general area but am just unclear- did no one search that specific area?

Hi everyone, I hope you don't mind me asking these questions. I'm getting totally overwhelmed by the amount of conflicting information out there, and there seems to be a good dose of misinformation mixed in. I'd really appreciate answers to these questions if you know them:

1. When was the Snapchat photo of Abby on the bridge taken?

2. Is it true that this photo was not found on the phone or the Snapchat account? (I feel silly asking this but I've seen it pop up several times)

3. Was this photo presented in court?

4. In the BG video, how much distance

roughly does he cover from start to finish?

5. Can he be seen saying "Down the hill" in the video / is it understood that he is very close to the girls when he says this?

Thanks in advance. Hope everyone is doing OK, this case weighs heavy.

From what I understand, it would’ve taken Libby about 10 minutes to die, and about 5 minutes to lose consciousness.

To be blunt there are much quicker ways to kill someone with a knife, especially by cutting the neck, than this.

Unless BG was just physically weak, this to me would imply he wanted LG to suffer - he wanted to draw out the death.

My question is, why do you think, if this is so?

Was it because she fought? Or was it because she “fit” his fantasy more than Abby did?

Or was he simply physically not that strong?

Obviously we cannot know definitive answers. I’m more asking for your speculation. It seems barbaric to me

The case presented by the state thus far, in my opinion, is not particularly strong, and plenty of holes can be poked in it.

But the defense blasting in with a whacky mid-day ritual murder scenario involving multiple people might have the effect of making the jury feel the state’s case isn’t so bad after all and is a much more rational and likely scenario despite the completely botched investigation.

We haven’t heard the confessions yet but given the sheer number of them and the deranged way RA was reported to be behaving in prison, as well as the amount of information about the crime that has been leaked and is already common knowledge, I don’t feel very confident there will be definitive conclusions that can be drawn from them.

I think the defense’s best approach is just to continue to highlight the incompetence of LE and the lack of airtight evidence. They could call some experts to cast doubt on the state’s witnesses’ testimony, maybe some law enforcement officers to hammer them on the errors made, some character witnesses who saw RA acting normal later that day and afterwards, some individuals from the prison to testify to RAs jail conditions and deteriorating mental state, and then rest their case.

And I think the state needs to continue to emphasize that BG is the only possible suspect (being the only adult male present in the vicinity between the time the girls were dropped off to the time Libby’s phone moved to the murder location) and that RA established himself to be BG by placing himself on the trail in matching clothes at the same time.